Landrew wrote:The argumentum was absent my post, but the ignorantiam was evident in yours. I was asking a question, not making a claim.

It matters not, and with this response you only demonstrate the paucity of your understanding of logic. Your classic argumentum ad ignorantiam was of the form 'but how can that be?', or, put another way, 'I can't think of any way that this could be, thus it couldn't', which is a textbook example of the fallacy I accused you of committing.

If something is claimed to have "always existed" the problem of infinite regression always applies.

What 'problem'? What exactly is the problem with infinite regress (aside form the fact that the regress is, to all intents and purposes, halted at the prior state in some models)?

If something is claimed to have a beginning, the question of what happened before the beginning always applies.

Of course it does.

If, as some theoretical physics suggests, that time did not exist before the big bang, it offers a possible solution.

Who would these theoretical physicists be, pray tell? Once again, wheeling out this trope won't make it any more true than the last several thousand times it's been wheeled out. Tell us what you know of these theoretical physicists and their models.

Landrew wrote:Think about the alternative to: "the universe had a beginning."
"The universe has always existed."
Does this statement make sense? How could infinite regression possibly work?
If time and space themselves were created at the time of the Big Bang, it solves the problem quite nicely.

No matter whether or not spacetime has a beginning or an end, it has always existed and it will always exist, since there can be no pre-time time and no post-time time either.
"x has always existed" means "there was no time when x didn't exist", and "x will always exist" means "there will be no time when x doesn't exist".
"x has always existed"/"x will always exist" is not synonymous with "x has an infinite past"/"x has an infinite future".

Landrew wrote:Think about the alternative to: "the universe had a beginning."

"The universe has always existed."

Does this statement make sense? How could infinite regression possibly work?

Could you please explain why so many people find the "infinite regression" argument so compelling? To me, it amounts to no more than saying "An actual infinite cannot exist, because an actual infinite cannot exist." More accurately, it can be summarized as "An actual infinite cannot exist because I cannot understand how it could."

It's especially puzzling that so many who make this argument will immediatley turn around and start arguing for the existence of things like beings that are immaterial, but can nonetheless think and interact with the material universe. Not that I'm saying you are among them.

If time and space themselves were created at the time of the Big Bang, it solves the problem quite nicely.

Science does not owe us explanations that solve "problems" which only arise from our own limited perception and comprehension.

Shrunk wrote:

Landrew wrote:Think about the alternative to: "the universe had a beginning."

"The universe has always existed."

Does this statement make sense? How could infinite regression possibly work?

Could you please explain why so many people find the "infinite regression" argument so compelling? To me, it amounts to no more than saying "An actual infinite cannot exist, because an actual infinite cannot exist." More accurately, it can be summarized as "An actual infinite cannot exist because I cannot understand how it could."

It's especially puzzling that so many who make this argument will immediatley turn around and start arguing for the existence of things like beings that are immaterial, but can nonetheless think and interact with the material universe. Not that I'm saying you are among them.

If time and space themselves were created at the time of the Big Bang, it solves the problem quite nicely.

Science does not owe us explanations that solve "problems" which only arise from our own limited perception and comprehension.

It's easy to declare that the universe was magically created by a magical creator, but then who created the creator? Was there an infinite series of pro-creators? Was this creator then, originally the product of abiogenesis?

Creationism opens up a can of worms, far more bizarre than the science behind abiogenesis.

Landrew wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Landrew wrote:Think about the alternative to: "the universe had a beginning."

"The universe has always existed."

Does this statement make sense? How could infinite regression possibly work?

Could you please explain why so many people find the "infinite regression" argument so compelling? To me, it amounts to no more than saying "An actual infinite cannot exist, because an actual infinite cannot exist." More accurately, it can be summarized as "An actual infinite cannot exist because I cannot understand how it could."

It's especially puzzling that so many who make this argument will immediatley turn around and start arguing for the existence of things like beings that are immaterial, but can nonetheless think and interact with the material universe. Not that I'm saying you are among them.

If time and space themselves were created at the time of the Big Bang, it solves the problem quite nicely.

Science does not owe us explanations that solve "problems" which only arise from our own limited perception and comprehension.

It's easy to declare that the universe was magically created by a magical creator, but then who created the creator? Was there an infinite series of pro-creators? Was this creator then, originally the product of abiogenesis?

Creationism opens up a can of worms, far more bizarre than the science behind abiogenesis.

But the problems that creates have nothing to do w/ any inherent problems with the idea of an infinite regress. It simply refutes any attempts to demonstrate the existence of God by claiming everything must have a cause, and that God is that cause. If you're not committed to that position, then the infinite regress should cause no problems.

Shrunk wrote:

Landrew wrote:

But the problems that creates have nothing to do w/ any inherent problems with the idea of an infinite regress. It simply refutes any attempts to demonstrate the existence of God by claiming everything must have a cause, and that God is that cause. If you're not committed to that position, then the infinite regress should cause no problems.

God as "the cause" is negated by a number of problems; chiefly that god is a magical solution, which is never a solution at all. It's also self-negating, in that god himself isn't required to have a beginning, as all other things are required to have.

Landrew wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Landrew wrote:

But the problems that creates have nothing to do w/ any inherent problems with the idea of an infinite regress. It simply refutes any attempts to demonstrate the existence of God by claiming everything must have a cause, and that God is that cause. If you're not committed to that position, then the infinite regress should cause no problems.

God as "the cause" is negated by a number of problems; chiefly that god is a magical solution, which is never a solution at all. It's also self-negating, in that god himself isn't required to have a beginning, as all other things are required to have.

I think we're in agreement with that. However, you seem you believe that the possibility of an infinite regress is sufficiently problematic that it argues against any non-theistic models that suggest, for instance, an eternally existing universe. So that's what I'm asking about.

Landrew wrote:Think about the alternative to: "the universe had a beginning."

"The universe has always existed."

Does this statement make sense? How could infinite regression possibly work?

If time and space themselves were created at the time of the Big Bang, it solves the problem quite nicely.

I don't think it 'solves' the problem, let alone quite nicely. It just waves sweeps it under a cosmic rug.

What was the state prior to our universe's expansion? If there was a 'prior' state, then how can it be understood if not from a temporal manner? While the big bang may have caused time and space within our universe, i don't think it's anything like a solution to say that time and space as absolutes popped into existence along with our particular expansion.

I'm also not convinced that we evolved apes have the mental tools to envision this topic very well. The best analogies I've seen involve something like a cosmic foam, with bubbles forming and expanding internally while not having any effect in the foam themselves. Does it have to make sense to us? I'm not so sure it does.

hackenslash wrote:I tend to employ 'cosmos' to observe this distinction, although semantically the two words are actually indistinguishable. It does negate the need for the excessively cumbersome 'that which arose from the big bang', though.

I tend to preface it with the word 'our' (as if we own it! ) but I do feel that there's a need here for the state that is outside of our universe, even if our universe is merely a subset, a locality, a cornershop of the greater cosmos.